Discussion » Ask a Foreigner » The british are charming, cultured and conservativ

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:
    <p><span style="font-size: small;">In England , traditional value is the keystone to business. The british listen politely but are slow to accept new ideas. Quality products with proven value are well received, and loyalty is a treasured asset. A handshake is taken as a commitment in this, the most civilized coutry in t he world.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small;">Do you agree?</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small;">High Priest</span></p>
  • Simen Wangberg

    Charming, cultured and conservative? Someone's never drank with a British person before. It ain't pretty.

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    OP,Are those British ppl have anything to do with U?

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Hmmm, generally speaking I would say they are reflexively polite, rather than charming; not particularly cultured (who is?); and, yes, conservative albeit in an anarchistic way...

    I would add that they are socially awkward, and quite self-deprecating...

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    What magnificent stuff u contributed here before? and why the fuck should I contribute meaningful stuff to u morons here? 

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    In terms of cultural ouput, the British have a lot to be proud of. However, as a nation, as a people, I don't think they are particularly cultured per se. Certainly not in terms of sophistication and refinement anyway. In fact, I'd argue they are suspicious and even somewhat sneering of such behaviour...

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Yes, I guess conservative ought to be defined here.

    I was thinking in terms of being moderate, inclined to the status quo, respecting of tradition etc. In these terms, they have (the British) rather conservative traits, of course with liberal dashings of tolerance and other such counters...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    My sense of humor has always tended to gravitate a bit more toward the opposite side of the Atlantic from where I was born. I rather like Brits and I think even their chavs are considerably more charming than some of America's nouveau riche. Then again, they say the grass is always greener on the other side.

    Speaking of grass, spinning joints with tobacco is unforgiveable. Limey fucking cunts.

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    The Yank way of smoking-up was, I guess still is, always a bit harsh for me, and pure ones are constantly going out. The whole technique seems designed to get people as stoned as quickly as possible.

    Europeans prefer to leisurely smoke away until they've had their fill, and pass it on; as oposed to all this one toke pass marlarkey, while holding the bugger in a pair of fucking tweezers, dreadfully uncivilised. 

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    。。。

    Hahahahaha ... like the love-hate that Taiwanese have against Japanese, HK folks feel the same way about the British ...

  • Ataahua
    Ataahua wrote:

    love-hate is a complex emotion, better than more-hate-than-love.

    i feel young taiwanese very into japen and its cultures

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Carlos, Rolling a pure American style joint is something of a fine craft, and for the most part, only old timers do it. But if you're going for civilized, you can't beat an artfully blown glass shotgun pipe. That's what I learned to smoke with. If you use the carb (or trick, or whatever you call that hole you keep your thumb on), it's not harsh at all.

    I do, however, agree that we tend to be too parsimonious with the puff-puff-pass protocol.

    I just can't stand tobacco. I think it ruins the flavor of good KB.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ... and I believe, most Australians feel the same way about the British too ... although I might be wrong about this :)

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    I've seen these morons. Yeah, let's put an entire cheap cigarette's worth of tobacco in a giant rolling paper and then sprinkle a little bit of hash on top! Equivalent: let's drop a shot of beer into a glass of water and get drunk!

    The whole technique seems designed to get people as stoned as quickly as possible.

    This would seem strange, I guess, to those who prefer to "leisurely" not get stoned.

    Thinking Americans understand that the two substances require two different methods of inhalation, and thus if you mix them together, you're obviously DOING IT WRONG.

  • Erik Røger
    Erik Røger wrote:

    Charming yes, cultured yes. But I wouldnt say conservative haha. What Michael said is right we are heavy drinkers!!!

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    it's a bit high school, but I used to rather like bongs..

    柯南: No issue with the getting stoned, but don't see why it should be rushed. Also the folks I know back home use about a third of a cigarette max, just to help with the burn more than anything...

    Two different methods of inhalation, you mean the Clinton way and the normal way?

    Hell, I don't even smoke the stuff anymore...

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    obviously if we are going to be serious about this debate, it should be pointed out that God is a known Englishman and therefore British...

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Yup, good god-fearin folk

  • Sally
    Sally wrote:

    my ex ex bf was a british, love his accent, haha, rlly nice guy

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    Per each conservative mojón like Thatcher, you can find persons like Alan Moore, George Orwell, Russel,Engels, Hume, ....even Sid Vicious :p  

    ∑= disparity


  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    For those that are interested in British, or English rather, identity, (a pet interest of mine) I'd reccomend a book called 'Watching the English,' by Kate Fox (I think). 

    She doesn't get much beyond the stereotypes, but for a bit of pat-ball anthropology it's pretty gneat. She's particulalry good on the weather, pets, politeness, humour and, of course, boozing (our raison detre)..

  • Simen Wangberg

    "entertaining TV shows like Binge Britain and Booze Britain."

    These are real? I thought the U.S. was the king of trash TV. Well-played, British people!

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Bidets, nobody in the UK uses bidets

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahaha ... anyone knows who won the cricket this year? and the rugby?

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    such Venom

  • Ejdnzlaj
    Ejdnzlaj wrote:

    In Britian, the idea of "British" identity is totally fragmented and barely existant other than in the rightest of the right wing who still pine after a lost empire that they are too young to have ever experienced. Britain is just an island of alcohol abuse, recreational violence and teen pregnancy.

    Also OP interchanges England with Britain. Instafail. 

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Medical marijuana and carcinogenic tobacco.

    Scott, what the fuck are you smoking?

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Scott is smoking a traitorous adultery, demonstrating inexcusable ignorance.

  • Ejdnzlaj
    Ejdnzlaj wrote:

    What you've got to realise when it comes to joints is that in Britain, unless you have a friend who grows their own (and knows what they are doing), your only options are going to be terrible weed grown in ditch in the countryside or hash that's so cheap by the weight that you can't not be suspicious about what it's cut with. It's not a case of ruining good weed, it's a case of making the best with limited resources.

  • V. Bilrost
    V. Bilrost wrote:

    I have too many good friends who're British, too familiar to tell the ‘stereotype’, I just wonder who're the fans of Little Britain, Bottom, Father Ted and Black Adder ^^

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Kieran, I still fail to see how further weakening schwag or further adulterating soaphash is "making the best" of an already tragic situation. I understand the comparative social advantages of rolling a long spliff, but the slightest suggestion that tobacco and cannabis are otherwise functionally complementary is heresy most profane.

    What Conan mentioned upstairs about different inhalation techniques is absolutely crucial; cigarettes must be puffed and exhaled swiftly, whereas even the worst cannabis can and should be held in the lungs for a significantly longer period of time.

    Spinning crappy grass with tobacco means you have to exhale sooner, particularly since you aren't using a filter. Unless you are using filters, like SOMEONE I know. ಠ_ಠ

    Not to mention, tobacco burns faster. This seems like an advantage because you don't have to re-light a spliff as often, but the way I look at it is that if you can't finish a full joint of pure grass, then when it burns out, perhaps that is God's way of telling you to stash it for later.

    tl;dr, hijacking an HP thread for a frank discussion of cannabis consumption.

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    @Kieran, the only gear I can get in the UK are extremely strong, hydroponically grown,  varieties of skunk- the THC content being so high as to be almost completely debilitating. I used to pine for crap hash or weed back in UK.

    A small amount of tobbaco mixed with your weed is fine (about a third of the whole mix), it certainly can be held in the lungs and it imparts a certain flavour, that I quite like. It also stops the joint having to be relit, which can be such a bore otherwise.

    Anyway, I feel like a 15-year-old all of a sudden, so I'll stop talking about dope from here on in.

    Crack however...

  • 随便叫兽
  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    "In times past, legalized medical marijuana in California. Marijuana includes about 50 times more carcinogens than tobacco, so...."

    [citation needed]

    According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse (certainly not a pro-legalization organization), the figure is something like 50% more. Moreover it does not treated with chemical additives the way tobacco is, and nobody smokes a pack of joints a day. There has never been a reputable peer-reviewed study showing a link between cannabis use and cancer.

    This is what vaporizers are for. That's exactly what the early advocates and health professionals in California recommended for medical marijuana users before the law became a form of soft legalization.

    "[Conan] Seems like a Dando drone. Odd that he only seems to post near Dando to support him."

    Check his profile ID number; Conan has been here at least as long as me, and I can assure you that this is the only issue we have ever agreed upon. He posts infrequently, but most of the time he does so to antagonize me for being a liberal pussy.

    Weak sauce, Scooter. You're 0-3 for win-fail already. You could have joined us for a chuckle at your unintentionally oxymoronic statement instead of escalating with more fail. Oh well. Spin again!

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Scooter, You seem to care enough to speak as though you are an expert on WLIB forum history and make personal attacks whenever someone calls you out on your bullshit. But then when someone points out that your recollection of the facts is flawed, or asks you to proof, thats when you decide you don't care.

    That's an awfully long winded defense for someone who doesn't give a shit.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    There was no logic in my first post, Scooter. I was merely pointing out the humorous oxymoron of smoking medical marijuana spun with tobacco, with a slight pun: "what are you smoking?"

    Imagine, if you will, a person in California, who is on chemotherapy for lung cancer. The chemo has destroyed their appetite and made them nauseous, so they've been prescribed medical marijuana because it is a natural anti-emetic and an appetite stimulant. According to Dr. Scooter, who speaks as though he's an expert on cannabis because he used to live in California, sometimes our lung cancer patient will have to roll a tobacco spliff to keep from passing out.

    To me, that's absofuckinglutely hilarious, whether you intended it that way or not. You took that as a challenge to an argument, and that's even funnier.

    PROTIP: Vaporizers don't produce smoke; they heat the cannabis to a much lower temperature than what is required for combustion, but at a high enough temperature to evaporate the cannabinoids without burning the undesirable carcinogenic hydrocarbons and the rest of the plant matter.

    The effect can also be produced with nothing more than a pair of butter knives, a large bottle, and a stove. The technique is referred to as spot knifing. I understand it's popular in parts of Britain (look at me being relevant!)

  • Ejdnzlaj
    Ejdnzlaj wrote:

    I like how the two of you are having different arguments.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I'm awfully sorry that I hurt your feelings by pointing out the unintended humor of what you had said. I'm also sorry that Mormon God built you with a defective mental detector for discerning your own irony. And I'm sorry that you can't laugh at even the slightest joke at your own expense.

    There.

    I said it.

    You're really grasping at straws with that bit of "research," 屄-Tea-Dubbs. That study is rather meaningless unless we know something about the test conditions. 45% more compared to what? Did you even read it past the abstract? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Teach me more about not caring. I do so enjoy seeing this bold new social philosophy of yours inaction.

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    It seems unlikely but if, and I say if, the result of this research is true then the Brits could definitely on to something...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    What error, @Alex? Scott said cannabis contains 50 times the carcinogens of tobacco, and I cited a VERY conservative source saying the figure was only 50 percent more.

    Moving on, for the lulz...

    Vaporizing is far more effective than burning pot. The science behind this is very simple. THC evaporates at 157 degrees C. The temperature required to burn cannabis (or cannabis + tobacco) is several times higher than that figure. At that point, THC loses part of its efficacy and turns into cannabidiol and other (less desirable) compounds.

    Spot knifing is something of a cheap way of accomplishing the same effect. Let me explain the process:

    Equipment:

    2 butter knives,

    one empty 2 liter bottle (glass preferred),

    gas or electric stove (or bunsen burner, blowtorch, etc.),

    weed (buds, not shake or leftovers!),

    a friend (I guess that disqualifies me, huh?)

    1.) cut the bottom off the bottle. This is called a "hoobler". It will be used to funnel the vapors (and possibly some smoke; this method isn't perfect)

    (NOTE: breaking the bottom of a glass bottle and filing down the sharp edges would be preferable to a plastic bottle, which could release carcinogenic dioxin gases if heated by the knives later)

    1.5) [derp. forgot this part] roll your weed into little dime-sized burger patties

    2.) turn on your heat source

    3.) your friend, with one butter knife in each hand, heats the blades of the butter knives (some guesswork is necessary here, but if the knives become red hot or the handles become warm, UR DOIN IT RONG)

    4.) hold the hoobler at ~45 degree angle and put your mouth around the top of it. This and the whole teamwork thing makes this method of getting high a little bit gay. I hope that doesn't bother anybody.

    5.) your friend gently picks up a weed patty with the hot knives, being careful not to press the knives together yet

    6.) your friend holds the hot knives and the weed patty inside the bottom of the hoobler and pinches the weed patty between the hot knives; this increases the surface area contact between the heated knife blade and the cannabis patty

    7.) inhale, using the hoobler as a funnel to collect the vapor (and smoke, if the knives are too hot)

    8.) be high, and don't argue on the Internet!

    I had heard that this was a team sport with potheads in Britain, but so far I haven't met a Brit who has actually tried it, ever.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    And, to reiterate: there has never been a peer-reviewed scientific study showing a correlation between cannabis use and cancer.

    Ever.

    Say what you will about carcinogenic compounds in cannabis, but the link between actual incidence of cancer and cannabis usage is pure myth.

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    yup Dando, this technique is, used to be at least, comon in the UK. They call it doing  'hot knives.' I have watched it done (with hash).

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Ah. Oops. My bad. I conflated "spotting" and "hot knives" and came up with "spot knives." Guess I ain't perfect after all.

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Well, I admit that I am shocked to see the research that Scott has dug up. I never imagined that tobacco could increase the amount of THC released. And I admit I still don't understand why that would be the case. Still I will not be Europeanizing, because to inhale any amount of tobacco in the way that weed is inhaled is very unpleasant and uncomfortable due to the differences in the smoke. The smoking machines of the study could voice no such complaint. If we could find a reliable test for high-ness and conduct a human study on this, I would be interested to see the results.

    As to me being a Dando drone. Scott is confused. He saw me attack Dando in a recent thread and came to my page looking for an ally (and to join my ignored message-less friend request list), and saw that Dando is my "friend" and popped a brain sulcus.

    I have met Dando and found him to be an upstanding individual who is against drugs, but he is from Michigan and I am from Ohio and thus I can face the broad facts of this world and he cannot. And thus I can say to Scott: you won this one.

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    It should be noted, however, that Scott said this first:

    Sometimes when you get really good gov-engineered medical stuff, you have to mix it with tobacky or you'll pass out

    Now if the stuff is too strong, so strong as to make you pass out, why would he ADD tobacco, thus making it even stronger? Does this make sense?

    Scott, are you prepared to admit that you won this by way of lucky post-facto googling?


  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Isn't it?

    And it all starts from just one trolltastic postscript about the innate superiority of the American style of cannabis smoking before it snowballed into an avalanche of asspain.

    From that, we get the most epically failtastic wizdumb ever uttered by Scooter: Medical marijuana users--many of whom are cancer patients--should roll joints with tobacco to a) stop from passing out OR b) increase THC intake by 45% compared to suppositories.

    And, let's not forget, a fabricated statistic about cannabis' carcinogen content, which deviates from the real estimate by no less than two orders of magnitude

    Quite a smackdown, indeed. Maybe someone really should be keeping score.

    But listen, kids. I'm not in this to win this. Watching Scooter contradicking himself in the face is well worth alienating all my spliff-addled Britfriends.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Warm beer.

  • Ejdnzlaj
    Ejdnzlaj wrote:

    Cold beer is more refreshing, but has so little flavour

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I only had an authentic ale once, at that pub on Lucky Street near the Nashville. It wasn't bad. I feel like cold lager is good for nothing other than cleansing the palate, or making me pee a lot.

  • Simen Wangberg

    This thread fucking rules. Cold beer rules. Science rules. British humor...is sometimes good.

    Hot knifing rules, although I can't even say that cos I've never done it. There's a first time for everything, and my first time is going to be with Dando, and that is TOTALLY WHAT SHE SAID YOU GUYS.

    No for real let's do this.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    。。。

    (continued) ... heehee ... where is COOL? He likes talking about his Guiness :)

  • Undermoonlight

    Personally, I like Europeans, compared to Americans~I think the US will definitely collapse if it and its people continue to behave as arrogant (resulting from ignorance) bastards~Just like the Ancient China (7A.D to 17 A.D)~

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    I think recent events are helping to clarify this...

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahahahaha ...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Troll account detected.

  • Lana Montana
    Lana Montana wrote:

    Tempora, this can be true about any other nation, we are no racists here, right? :)))))))) it all depends on the person and many other factors

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Tempora, it is not from the bottom of our hearts. It's a habit, and occasional nervous reaction. We cannot help it, my apologies...

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    @Pear, u think british are crazy just u watched a drama?

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Really? But I think drama is just drama Pear, in real life people are normal and  behave differently

  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    I know drama is drama. but it more or less reflects people's minds/society...

    Really? Living in China hasn't disabused you of that impression yet? 

    (Please note that this is not a particularly China-centric thing, but rather it's particularly overt here) 

     

    And as I've been tricked into posting in this thread, would the OP please consult a map. British does not equal 'In England...', anymore than Koreans being basically all Chinese. 

  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:

    First off, let's clarify that 'more or less' means something completely different to 'has nothing to do with'. The former is asserting that the driving factor in the production of drama is 'people's mind/society'. The latter is asserting that 'people's mind/society' can be a factor. 

    Secondly, drama, or more generally art, is targetted to a particular sub-section of 'the people/society', which is why we don't have consensus tastes in films, music, literature and so on. So the idea that drama 'more or less' reflects the thoughts of a generalised notion of a society or a people falls a bit short. 

  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:

    Saying stupidity about  "Korean being Chinese" with "British being English" is not that propriate comparison. Maybe you better compare that with British being French or go further than that.

    Maybe you should also consult a map :P 

    Or failing that, consult some kind of textbook on satire and in this case particularly burlesque. 

  • Lana Montana
    Lana Montana wrote:

    For me British is more political name, composed of several nations with their own cultures, including manners and way of talking, while English is a nation with its own national culture and character. So that's why the comparison is kinda not really relevant :)

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc